Red October: Russia, Iran and Iraq
September 17, 2007 1909 GMT

By George Friedman

The course of the war in Iraq appears to be set for the next year. Of the four options we laid out a few weeks ago, the Bush administration essentially has selected a course between the first and second options -- maintaining the current mission and force level or retaining the mission but gradually reducing the force. The mission -- creating a stable, pro-American government in Baghdad that can assume the role of ensuring security -- remains intact. The strategy is to use the maximum available force to provide security until the Iraqis can assume the burden. The force will be reduced by the 30,000 troops who were surged into Iraq, though because that level of force will be unavailable by spring, the reduction is not really a matter of choice. The remaining force is the maximum available, and it will be reduced as circumstances permit.

Top U.S. commander in Iraq Gen. David Petraeus and others have made two broad arguments. First, while prior strategy indeed failed to make progress, a new strategy that combines aggressive security operations with recruiting political leaders on the subnational level -- the Sunni sheikhs in Anbar province, for example -- has had a positive impact, and could achieve the mission, given more time. Therefore, having spent treasure and blood to this point, it would be foolish for the United States not to pursue it for another year or two.

The second argument addresses the consequence of withdrawal. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice summed it up in an interview with NBC News. "And I would note that President [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad said if the United States leaves Iraq, Iran is prepared to fill the vacuum. That is what is at stake here," she said. We had suggested that the best way to contain Iran would be to cede Iraq and defend the Arabian Peninsula. One reason is that it would release troops for operations elsewhere in the world, if needed. The administration has chosen to try to keep Iraq -- any part of it -- out of Iranian hands. If successful, this obviously benefits the United States. If it fails, the United States can always choose a different option.

Within the region, this seems a reasonable choice, assuming the political foundations in Washington can be maintained, foundations that so far appear to be holding. The Achilles' heel of the strategy is the fact that it includes the window of vulnerability that we discussed a few weeks ago. The strategy and mission outlined by Petraeus commits virtually all U.S. ground forces to Iraq, with Afghanistan and South Korea soaking up the rest. It leaves air and naval power available, but it does not allow the United States to deal with any other crisis that involves the significant threat of ground intervention. This has consequences.

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki attended a meeting of the Iranian-Russian Joint Economic Commission in Moscow over the weekend. While in the Russian capital, Mottaki also met with Russian Atomic Energy Chief Sergei Kiriyenko to discuss Russian assistance in completing the Bushehr nuclear power plant. After the meeting, Mottaki said Russian officials had assured him of their commitment to complete the power plant. Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, said, "With regards to the Bushehr power plant, we have reached good understanding with the Russians. In this understanding a timetable for providing nuclear fuel on time and inaugurating this power plant has been fixed." While the truth of Russian assurances is questionable -- Moscow has been mere weeks away from making Bushehr operational for the better part of the last three years, and is about as excited about a nuclear-armed Iran as is Washington -- the fact remains that Russian-Iranian cooperation continues to be substantial, and public.

Mottaki also confirmed -- and this is significant -- that Russian President Vladimir Putin would visit Tehran on Oct. 16. The occasion is a meeting of the Caspian Sea littoral nations, a group that comprises Russia, Iran, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. According to the Iranians, Putin agreed not only to attend the conference, but also to use the visit to confer with top Iranian leaders.

This is about the last thing the United States wanted the Russians to do -- and therefore the first thing the Russians did. The Russians are quite pleased with the current situation in Iraq and Iran and do not want anything to upset it. From the Russian point of view, the Americans are tied down in an extended conflict that sucks up resources and strategic bandwidth in Washington. There is a similarity here with Vietnam. The more tied down U.S. forces were in Vietnam, the more opportunities the Soviets had. Nowadays, Russia's resources are much diminished compared with those of the Soviets -- while Russia has a much smaller range of interest. Moscow's primary goal is to regain a sphere of influence within the former Soviet Union. Whatever ambitions it may dream of, this is the starting point. The Russians see the Americans as trying to thwart their ambitions throughout their periphery, through support for anti-Russian elements via U.S. intelligence.

If the United States plans to stay in Iraq until the end of the Bush presidency, then the United States badly needs something from the Russians -- that they not provide arms, particularly air-defense systems, to the Syrians and especially the Iranians. The Americans need the Russians not to provide fighter aircraft, modern command-and-control systems or any of the other war-making systems that the Russians have been developing. Above all else, they want the Russians not to provide the Iranians any nuclear-linked technology.

Therefore, it is no accident that the Iranians claimed over the weekend that the Russians told them they would do precisely that. Obviously, the discussion was of a purely civilian nature, but the United States is aware that the Russians have advanced military nuclear technology and that the distinction between civilian and military is subtle. In short, Russia has signaled the Americans that it could very easily trigger their worst nightmare.

The Iranians, fairly isolated in the world, are being warned even by the French that war is a real possibility. Obviously, then, they view the meetings with the Russians as being of enormous value. The Russians have no interest in seeing Iran devastated by the United States. They want Iran to do just what it is doing -- tying down U.S. forces in Iraq and providing a strategic quagmire for the Americans. And they are aware that they have technologies that would make an extended air campaign against Iran much more costly than it would be otherwise. Indeed, without a U.S. ground force capable of exploiting an air attack anyway, the Russians might be able to create a situation in which suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD, the first stage of a U.S. air campaign) would be costly, and in which the second phase -- battle against infrastructure -- could become a war of attrition. The United States might win, in the sense of ultimately having command of the air, but it could not force a regime change -- and it would pay a high price.

It also should not be forgotten that the Russians have the second-largest nuclear arsenal in the world. The Russians very ostentatiously announced a few weeks ago that their Bear bombers were returning to constant patrol. This amused some in the U.S. military, who correctly regard the Bear as obsolete. They forget that the Russians never really had a bomber force designed for massive intercontinental delivery of nuclear devices. The announcement was a gesture -- and reminder that Russian ICBMs could easily be pointed at the United States.

Russia obviously doesn't plan a nuclear exchange with the United States, although it likes forcing the Americans to consider the possibility. Nor do the Russians want the Iranians to gain nuclear weapons. What they do want is an extended conflict in Iraq, extended tension between Iran and the United States, and they wouldn't much mind if the United States went to war with Iran as well. The Russians would happily supply the Iranians with whatever weapons systems they could use in order to bleed the United States a bit more, as long as they are reasonably confident that those systems would not be pointed north any time soon.

The Russians are just as prepared to let the United States have a free hand against Iran and not pose any challenges while U.S. forces are tied down in Iraq. But there is a price and it will be high. The Russians are aware that the window of opportunity is now and that they could create nightmarish problems for the United States. Therefore, the Russians will want the following:

In the Caucasus, they want the United States to withdraw support for Georgia and force the Georgian government to reach an accommodation with Moscow. Given Armenian hostility to Turkey and closeness to Russia, this would allow the Russians to reclaim a sphere of influence in the Caucasus, leaving Azerbaijan as a buffer with Iran.

In Ukraine and Belarus, the Russians will expect an end to all U.S. support to nongovernmental organizations agitating for a pro-Western course.

In the Baltics, the Russians will expect the United States to curb anti-Russian sentiment and to explicitly limit the Baltics' role in NATO, excluding the presence of foreign troops, particularly Polish.

Regarding Serbia, they want an end to any discussion of an independent Kosovo.

The Russians also will want plans abandoned for an anti-ballistic-missile system that deploys missiles in Poland.

In other words, the Russians will want the United States to get out of the former Soviet Union -- and stay out. Alternatively, the Russians are prepared, on Oct. 16, to reach agreements on nuclear exchange and weapons transfers that will include weapons that the Iranians can easily send into Iraq to kill U.S. troops. Should the United States initiate an air campaign prior to any of this taking effect, the Russians will increase the supply of weapons to Iran dramatically, using means it used effectively in Vietnam: shipping them in. If the United States strikes against Russian ships, the Russians will then be free to strike directly against Georgia or the Baltic states, countries that cannot defend themselves without American support, and countries that the United States is in no position to support.

It is increasingly clear that Putin intends to reverse in practice, if not formally, the consequences of the fall of the Soviet Union. He does not expect at this point to move back into Central Europe or engage in a global competition with the United States. He knows that is impossible. But he also understands three things: First, his armed forces have improved dramatically since 2000. Second, the countries he is dealing with are no match for his forces as long as the United States stays out. Third, staying out or not really is not a choice for the United States. As long as it maintains this posture in Iraq, it is out.

This is Putin's moment and he can exploit it in one of two ways: He can reach a quiet accommodation with the Americans, and leave the Iranians hanging. Conversely, he can align with the Iranians and place the United States in a far more complex situation than it otherwise would be in. He could achieve this by supporting Syria, arming militias in Lebanon or even causing significant problems in Afghanistan, where Russia retains a degree of influence in the North.

The Russians are chess players and geopoliticians. In chess and geopolitics, the game is routine and then, suddenly, there is an opening. You seize the opening because you might never get another one. The United States is inherently more powerful than Russia, save at this particular moment. Because of a series of choices the United States has made, it is weaker in the places that matter to Russia. Russia will not be in this position in two or three years. It needs to act now.

Therefore, Putin will go to Iran on Oct. 16 and will work to complete Iran's civilian nuclear project. What agreements he might reach with Iran could given the United States nightmares. If the United States takes out Iran's nuclear weapons, the Russians will sympathize and arm the Iranians even more intensely. If the Americans launch an extended air campaign, the Russians will happily increase the supply of weapons even more. Talk about carpet-bombing Iran is silly. It is a big country and the United States doesn't have that much carpet. The supplies would get through.

Or the United States can quietly give Putin the sphere of influence he wants, letting down allies in the former Soviet Union, in return for which the Russians will let the Iranians stand alone against the Americans, not give arms to Middle Eastern countries, not ship Iran weapons that will wind up with militias in Iraq. In effect, Putin is giving the United States a month to let him know what it has in mind.

It should not be forgotten that Iran retains an option that could upset Russian plans. Iran has no great trust of Russia, nor does it have a desire to be trapped between American power and Russian willingness to hold Iran's coat while it slugs things out with the Americans. At a certain point, sooner rather than later, the Iranians must examine whether they want to play the role of the Russian cape to the American bull. The option for the Iranians remains the same -- negotiate the future of Iraq with the Americans. If the United States is committed to remaining in Iraq, Iran can choose to undermine Washington, at the cost of increasing its own dependence on the Russians and the possibility of war with the Americans. Or it can choose to cut a deal with the Americans that gives it influence in Iraq without domination. Iran is delighted with Putin's visit. But that visit also gives it negotiating leverage with the Americans. This remains the wild card.

Petraeus' area of operations is Iraq. He may well have crafted a viable plan for stabilizing Iraq over the next few years. But the price to be paid for that is not in Iraq or even in Iran. It is in leaving the door wide open in other areas of the world. We believe the Russians are about to walk through one of those doors. The question in the White House, therefore, must be: How much is Iraq worth? Is it worth recreating the geopolitical foundations of the Soviet Union?

FOUR MAJOR TRANSFORMATIONS
>>
>> HERBERT MEYER
>>
>> Currently, there are four major transformations that
>> are shaping political, economic and world events.
>> These transformations have profound implications for
>> American business owners, our culture and our way of
>> life.

1. The War in Iraq
2. The Emergence of China
3. Shifting Demographics of Western Civilization
4. Restructuring of American Business

There are three major monotheistic religions in the
>> world: Christianity, Judaism and Islam. In the 16th
>> century, Judaism and Christianity reconciled with the
>> modern world. The rabbis, priests and scholars found
>> a way to settle up and pave the way forward. Religion
>> remained at the center of life, church and state
>> became separate. Rule of law, idea of economic
>> liberty, all these are defining points of modern
>> Western individual rights, human rights civilization.
>> These concepts started with the Greeks but didn't take
>> off until the 15th and 16th century when Judaism and
>> Christianity found a way to reconcile with the modern
>> world. When that happened, it unleashed the scientific
>> revolution and the greatest outpouring of art,
>> literature and music the world has ever known.
>>
>>
>>
>> Islam, which developed in the 7th century, counts
>> millions of Moslems around the world who are normal
>> people. However, there is a radical streak within
>> Islam.

When the radicals are in charge, Islam attacks
>> Western civilization.

Islam first attacked Western
>> civilization in the 7th century, and later in the 16th
>> and 17th centuries. By 1683, the Moslems (Turks from
>> the Ottoman Empire) were literally at the gates of
>> Vienna . It was in Vienna that the climatic battle
>> between Islam and Western civilization took place.
>> The West won and went forward. Islam lost and went
>> backward interestingly; the date of that battle was
>> September 11. Since then, Islam has not found a way to
>> reconcile with the modern world.
>>
>>
>> Today, terrorism is the third attack on Western
>> civilization by radical Islam.

To deal with
>> terrorism, the U.S. is doing two things.

First: units of our armed forces are in 30 countries around the
>> world hunting down terrorist groups and dealing with
>> them. This gets very little publicity.

Second we are taking military action in Afghanistan and Iraq . These
>> are covered relentlessly by the media. People can
>> argue about whether the war in Iraq is right or wrong.
>> However, the underlying strategy behind the war is to
>> use our military to remove the radicals from power and
>> give the moderates a chance. Our hope is that, over
>> time, the moderates will find a way to bring Islam
>> forward into the 21st century. That's what our
>> involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is all about.
>>
>>
>>
>> The lesson of 9/11 is that we live in a world where a
>> small number of people can kill a large number of
>> people very quickly. They can use airplanes, bombs,
>> anthrax, chemical weapons or dirty bombs. Even with a
>> first-rate intelligence service (which the U.S. does
>> not have), you cant stop every attack. That means our
>> tolerance "for political horseplay" has dropped to
>> zero. No longer will we play games with terrorists or
>> weapons of mass destructions.
>>
>> Most of the instability and horseplay is coming from
>> the Middle East . That's why we have thought that if
>> we could knock out the radicals and give the moderates
>> a chance to hold power; they might find a way to
>> reconcile Islam with the modern world. So when looking
>> at Afghanistan or Iraq , it's important to look for
>> any signs that they are modernizing. For example, a
>> woman being brought into the workforce and colleges in
>> Afghanistan is good. The Iraqis stumbling toward a
>> constitution is good. People can argue about what the
>> U.S. is doing and how we're doing it, but anything
>> that suggests Islam is finding its way forward is
>> good.

2. The Emergence of China


In the last 20 years, China has moved 250 million
>> people from the farms and villages into the cities.
>> Their plan is to move another 300 million in the next
>> 20 years. When you put that many people into the
>> cities, you have to find work for them. That's why
>> China is addicted to manufacturing; they have to put
>> all the relocated people to work. When we decide to
>> manufacture something in the U.S. , it's based on
>> market needs and the opportunity to make a profit. In
>> China , they make the decision because they want the
>> jobs, which is a very different calculation.

>> While China is addicted to manufacturing, Americans
>> are addicted to low prices. As a result, a unique
>> kind of economic codependency has developed between
>> the two countries. If we ever stop buying from China
>> , they will explode politically. If China stops
>> selling to us, our economy will take a huge hit
>> because prices will jump. We are subsidizing their
>> economic development; they are subsidizing our
>> economic growth.

>> Because of their huge growth in manufacturing, China
>> is hungry for raw materials, which drive prices up
>> worldwide. China is also thirsty for oil, which is
>> one reason oil is now at $60 a barrel. By 2020, China
>> will produce more cars than the U.S. China is also
>> buying its way into the oil infrastructure around the
>> world. They are doing it in the open market and
>> paying fair market prices, but millions of barrels of
>> oil that would have gone to the U.S. are now going to
>> China . China 's quest to assure it has the oil it
>> needs to fuel its economy is a major factor in world
>> politics and economics. We have our Navy fleets
>> protecting the sea lines, specifically the ability to
>> get the tankers through. It won't be long before the
>> Chinese have an aircraft carrier sitting in the
>> Persian Gulf as well. The question is, will their
>> aircraft carrier be pointing in the same direction as
>> ours or against us?
>>
>>
>>
>> 3. Shifting Demographics of Western Civilization
>>
>>
>>
>> Most countries in the Western world have stopped
>> breeding. For a civilization obsessed with sex, this
>> is remarkable. Maintaining a steady population
>> requires a birth rate of 2.1. In Western Europe , the
>> birth rate currently stands at 1.5, or 30 percent
>> below replacement. In 30 years there will be 70 to 80
>> million fewer Europeans than there are today. The
>> current birth rate in Germany is 1.3. Italy and Spain
>> are even lower at 1.2. At that rate, the working age
>> population declines by 30 percent in 20 years, which
>> has a huge impact on the economy.
>>

>> When you don't have young workers to replace the
>> older ones, you have to import them. The European
>> countries are currently importing Moslems. Today, the
>> Moslems comprise 10 percent of France and Germany ,
>> and the percentage is rising rapidly because they have
>> higher birthrates. However, the Moslem populations are
>> not being integrated into the cultures of their host
>> countries, which is a political catastrophe. One
>> reason Germany and France don't support the Iraq war
>> is they fear their Moslem populations will explode on
>> them. By 2020, more than half of all births in the
>> Netherlands will be non-European.
>>
>> The huge design flaw in the post-modern secular state
>> is that you need a traditional religious society birth
>> rate to sustain it. The Europeans simply don't wish
>> to have children, so they are dying. In Japan , the
>> birthrate is 1.3. As a result, Japan will lose up to
>> 60 million people over the next 30 years. Because
>> Japan has a very different society than Europe , they
>> refuse to import workers. Instead, they are just
>> shutting down. Japan has already closed 2000 schools,
>> and is closing them down at the rate of 300 per year.
>> Japan is also aging very rapidly.

By 2020, one out of every five Japanese will be at least 70 years old.
Nobody has any idea about how to run an economy with those demographics.

>> Europe and Japan , which comprise two of the world's
>> major economic engines, aren't merely in recession,
>> they're shutting down. This will have a huge impact
>> on the world economy, and it is already beginning to
>> happen.

Why are the birthrates so low? There is a
>> direct correlation between abandonment of traditional
>> religious society and a drop in birth rate, and
>> Christianity in Europe is becoming irrelevant.

The second reason is economic. When the birth rate drops
>> below replacement, the population ages. With fewer
>> working people to support more retired people, it puts
>> a crushing tax burden on the smaller group of working
>> age people. As a result, young people delay marriage
>> and having a family. Once this trend starts, the
>> downward spiral only gets worse. These countries have
>> abandoned all the traditions they formerly held in
>> regards to having families and raising children.

>> The U.S. birth rate is 2.0, just below replacement.
>> We have an increase in population because of
>> immigration. When broken down by ethnicity, the Anglo
>> birth rate is 1.6 (same as France ) while the Hispanic
>> birth rate is 2.7. In the U.S. , the baby boomers are
>> starting to retire in massive numbers. This will push
>> the "elder dependency" ratio from 19 to 38 over the
>> next 10 to 15 years. This is not as bad as Europe ,
>> but still represents the same kind of trend.

>> Western civilization seems to have forgotten what
>> every primitive society understands -- you need kids
>> to have a healthy society. Children are huge
>> consumers. Then they grow up to become taxpayers.
>> That's how a society works, but the post-modern
>> secular state seems to have forgotten that. If U.S.
>> birth rates of the past 20 to 30 years had been the
>> same as post-World War II, there would be no Social
>> Security or Medicare problems.
>>
>>
>>
>> The world's most effective birth control device is
>> money. As society creates a middle class and women
>> move into the workforce, birth rates drop. Having
>> large families is incompatible with middle class
>> living. The quickest way to drop the birth rate is
>> through rapid economic development. After World War
>> II, the U.S. instituted a $600 tax credit per child.
>> The idea was to enable mom and dad to have four
>> children without being troubled by taxes. This led to
>> a baby boom of 22 million kids, which was a huge
>> consumer market that turned into a huge tax base.
>> However, to match that incentive in today's dollars
>> would cost $12,000 per child.
>>
>>
>>
>> China and India do not have declining populations.
>> However, in both countries, there is a preference for
>> boys over girls, and we now have the technology to
>> know which is which before they are born. In China
>> and India , many families are aborting the girls. As
>> a result, in each of these countries there are 70
>> million boys growing up who will never find wives.
>> When left alone, nature produces 103 boys for every
>> 100 girls. In some provinces, however, the ratio is
>> 128 boys to every 100 girls.
>>
>>
>>
>> The birth rate in Russia is so low that by 2050 their
>> population will be smaller than that of Yemen .
>> Russia has one-sixth of the earth's land surface and
>> much of its oil. You can't control that much area
>> with such a small population. Immediately to the
>> south, you have China with 70 million unmarried men -
>> a real potential nightmare scenario for Russia .
>>
>>
>>
>> 4. Restructuring of American Business

>> The fourth major transformation involves a
>> fundamental restructuring of American business.
>> Today's business environment is very complex and
>> competitive. To succeed, you have to be the best,
>> which means having the highest quality and lowest
>> cost. Whatever your price point, you must have the
>> best quality and lowest price. To be the best, you
>> have to concentrate on one thing. You can't be all
>> things to all people and be the best.

>> A generation ago, IBM used to make every part of
>> their computer. Now Intel makes the chips, Microsoft
>> makes the software, and someone else makes the modems,
>> hard drives, monitors, etc. IBM even outsourcers
>> their call center. Because IBM has all these
>> companies supplying goods and services cheaper and
>> better than they could do it themselves, they can make
>> a better computer at a lower cost. This is called a
>> "fracturing" of business. When one company can make a
>> better product by relying on others to perform
>> functions the business used to do itself, it creates a
>> complex pyramid of companies that serve and support
>> each other.

>> This fracturing of American business is now in its
>> second generation. The outsourcing many of
>> their*companies who supply IBM are now doing the same
>> thing core services and production process. As a
>> result, they can make cheaper, better products. Over
>> time, this pyramid continues to get bigger and bigger.
>> Just when you think it can't fracture again, it does.
>> Even very small businesses can have a large pyramid of
>> corporate entities that perform many of its important
>> functions. One aspect of this trend is that companies
>> end up with fewer employees and more independent
>> contractors.

>> This integrator and*trend has also created two new
>> words in business complementor. At the top of the
>> pyramid, IBM is the integrator. As you go down the
>> pyramid, Microsoft, Intel and the other companies that
>> support IBM are the complementors. However, each of
>> the complementors is itself an integrator for the
>> complementors underneath it. This has several
>> implications, the first of which is that we are now
>> getting false readings on the economy. People who
>> used to be employees are now independent contractors
>> launching their own businesses. There are many people
>> working whose work is not listed as a job. As a
>> result, the economy is perking along better than the
>> numbers are telling us.

>> Outsourcing also confused the numbers. Suppose a
>> company like General Motors decides to outsource all
>> its employee cafeteria functions to Marriott (which it
>> did). It lays off hundreds of cafeteria workers, who
>> then get hired right back by Marriott. The only thing
>> that has changed is that these people work for
>> Marriott rather than GM. Yet, the headlines will
>> scream that America has lost more manufacturing jobs.
>> All that really happened is that these workers are now
>> reclassified as service workers. So the old way of
>> counting jobs contributes to false economic readings.
>> As yet, we haven't figured out how to make the numbers
>> catch up with the changing realities of the business
>> world.

>> Another implication of this massive restructuring is
>> that because companies are getting rid of units and
>> people that used to work for them, the entity is
>> smaller. As the companies+ get smaller and more
>> efficient, revenues are going down but profits are
>> going up. As a result, the old notion that "revenues
>> are up and we're doing great" isn't always the case
>> anymore. Companies are getting smaller but are
>> becoming more efficient and profitable in the process.
>>
>>
>>
>> IMPLICATIONS OF THE FOUR TRANSFORMATIONS

>> 1. The War in Iraq

>> In some ways, the war is going very well.
>> Afghanistan and Iraq have the beginnings of a modern
>> government, which is a huge step forward. The Saudis
>> are starting to talk about some good things, while
>> Egypt and Lebanon are beginning to move in a good
>> direction. A series of revolutions have taken place in
>> countries like Ukraine and Georgia .

There will be
more of these revolutions for an interesting reason.
In every revolution, there comes a point where the
dictator turns to the general and says, "Fire into the
crowd." If the general fires into the crowd, it stops
the revolution. If the general says "No," the
revolution is over. Increasingly, the generals are
saying "No" because their kids are in the crowd.

>> Thanks to TV and the Internet, the average 18-year
>> old outside the U.S. is very savvy about what is going
>> on in the world, especially in terms of popular
>> culture. There is a huge global consciousness, and
>> young people around the world want to be a part of it.
>> It is increasingly apparent to them that the
>> miserable government where they live is the only thing
>> standing in their way.

More and more, it is the well-educated kids,
the children of the generals and
the elite, who are leading the revolutions.

>> At the same time, not all is well with the war. The
>> level of violence in Iraq is much worse and doesn't
>> appear to be improving. It's possible that were
>> asking too much of Islam all at one time. We're
>> trying to jolt them from the 7th century to the 21st
>> century all at once, which may be further than they
>> can go. They might make it and they might not. Nobody
>> knows for sure. The point is, we don't know how the
>> war will turn out. Anyone who says they know is just
>> guessing.
>>

>> The real place to watch is Iran . If they actually
>> obtain nuclear weapons it will be a terrible
>> situation. There are two ways to deal with it. The
>> first is a military strike, which will be very
>> difficult. The Iranians have dispersed their nuclear
>> development facilities and put them underground. The
>> U.S. has nuclear weapons that can go under the earth
>> and take out those facilities, but we don't want to do
>> that.

The other way is to separate the radical mullahs
from the government, which is the most likely course
of action.
>>
>>

Seventy percent of the Iranian population is under
30. They are Moslem but not Arab. They are mostly
pro-Western. Many experts think the U.S. should have
dealt with Iran before going to war with Iraq . The
problem isnt so much the weapons, it's the people who
control them. If Iran has a moderate government, the
weapons become less of a concern.

>> We don't know if we will win the war in Iraq . We
>> could lose or win.

What were looking for is any
indicator that Islam is moving into the 21st century
and stabilizing.

>> 2. China

>> It may be that pushing 500 million people from farms
>> and villages into cities is too much too soon.
>>

Although it gets almost no publicity, China is
experiencing hundreds of demonstrations around the
country, which is unprecedented. These are not
students in Tiananmen Square . These are average
citizens who are angry with the government for
building chemical plants and polluting the water they
drink and the air they breathe.

The Chinese are a smart and industrious people. They
may be able to pull it off and become a very
successful economic and military superpower. If so,
we will have to learn to live with it. If they want
to share the responsibility of keeping the world's oil
lanes open, that's a good thing. They currently have
eight new nuclear electric power generators under way
and 45 on the books to build. Soon, they will leave
the U.S. way behind in their ability to generate
nuclear power.

What can go wrong with China ?

For one, you can't move 550 million people into the cities without major problems.

Two, China not so much really wants
Taiwan for economic reasons, they just want it. The
Chinese know that their system of communism can't
survive much longer in the 21st century. The last
thing they want to do before they morph into some sort
of more capitalistic government is to take over Taiwan

We may wake up one morning and find they have
launched an attack on Taiwan. If so, it will be a
mess, both economically and militarily. The U.S. has
committed to the military defense of Taiwan . If
China attacks Taiwan , will we really go to war
against them? If the Chinese generals believe the
answer is no, they may attack. If we don't defend
Taiwan , every treaty the U.S. has will be worthless.
Hopefully, China won't do anything stupid.

3. Demographics

Europe and Japan are dying because their populations
are aging and shrinking. These trends can be reversed
if the young people start breeding. However, the
birth rates in these areas are so low it will take two
generations to turn things around. No economic model
exists that permits 50 years to turn things around.
Some countries are beginning to offer incentives for
people to have bigger families. For example, Italy is
offering tax breaks for having children. However,
it's a lifestyle issue versus a tiny amount of money.
Europeans aren't willing to give up their comfortable
lifestyles in order to have more children.

In general, everyone in Europe just wants it to last
>> a while longer. Europeans have a real talent for
>> living. They don't want to work very hard. The
>> average European worker gets 400 more hours of
>> vacation time per year than Americans. They don't
>> want to work and they don't want to make any of the
>> changes needed to revive their economies.
>>
>>
>>
>> The summer after 9/11, France lost 15,000 people in a
>> heat wave. In August, the country basically shuts
>> down when everyone goes on vacation. That year, a
>> severe heat wave struck and 15,000 elderly people
>> living in nursing homes and hospitals died. Their
>> children didn't even leave the beaches to come back
>> and take care of the bodies. Institutions had to
>> scramble to find enough refrigeration units to hold
>> the bodies until people came to claim them.
>>
>>
>>
>> This loss of life was five times bigger than 9/11 in
>> America , yet it didnt trigger any change in French
>> society. When birth rates are so low, it creates a
>> tremendous tax burden on the young. Under those
>> circumstances, keeping mom and dad alive is not an
>> attractive option. That's why euthanasia is becoming
>> so popular in most European countries. The only
>> country that doesn't permit (and even encourage)
>> euthanasia is Germany , because of all the baggage
>> from World War II.
>>
>>
>>
>> The European economy is beginning to fracture. The
>> Euro is down. Countries like Italy are starting to
>> talk about pulling out of the European Union because
>> it is killing them. When things get bad economically
>> in Europe , they tend to get very nasty politically.
>> The canary in the mine is anti-Semitism. When it goes
>> up, it means trouble is coming. Current levels of
>> anti-Semitism are higher than ever. Germany wont
>> launch another war, but Europe will likely get
>> shabbier, more dangerous and less pleasant to live in.
>>
>>
>>
>> Japan has a birth rate of 1.3 and has no intention
>> of bringing in immigrants. By 2020, one out of every
>> five Japanese will be 70 years old. Property values in
>> Japan have dropped every year for the past 14 years.
>> The country is simply shutting down.
>>
>>
>>
>> In the U.S. we also have an aging population.
>> Boomers are starting to retire at a massive rate.
>> These retirements will have several major impacts:
>>
>>
>>
>> * Possible massive sell-off of large
>> four-bedroom houses and a movement to condos.
>>
>>
>>
>> * An enormous drain on the treasury.
>> Boomers vote and they want their benefits, even if it
>> means putting a crushing tax burden on their kids to
>> get them. Social Security will be a huge problem. As
>> this generation ages, it will start to drain the
>> system. We are the only country in the world where
>> there are no age limits on medical procedures.
>>
>>
>>
>> * An enormous drain on the health care
>> system. This will also increase the tax burden on the
>> young, which will cause them to delay marriage and
>> having families, which will drive down the birth rate
>> even further.
>>
>>
>>
>> Although scary, these demographics also present
>> enormous opportunities for products and services
>> tailored to aging populations. There will be
>> tremendous demand for caring for older people,
>> especially those who dont need nursing homes but need
>> some level of care. Some people will have a business
>> where they take care of three or four people in their
>> homes. The demand for that type of service and for
>> products to physically care for aging people will be
>> huge.
>>
>>
>>
>> Make sure the demographics of your business are
>> attuned to where the action is. For example, you
>> don't want to be a baby food company in Europe or
>> Japan . Demographics are much underrated as an
>> indicator of where the opportunities are. Businesses
>> need customers. Go where the customers are.
>>
>>
>>
>> 4. Restructuring of American Business
>>
>>
>>
>> The restructuring of American business means we are
>> coming to the end of the age of the employer and
>> employee. With all this fracturing of businesses into
>> different and smaller units, employers can't guarantee
>> jobs anymore because they don't know what their
>> companies will look like next year. Everyone is on
>> their way to becoming an independent contractor. The
>> new workforce contract will be, "Show up at the my
>> office five days a week and do what I want you to do,
>> but you handle your own insurance, benefits, health
>> care and everything else."
>>
>>
>>
>> Husbands and wives are becoming economic units. They
>> take different jobs and work different shifts
>> depending on where they are in their careers and
>> families. They make tradeoffs to put together a
>> compensation package to take care of the family. This
>> used to happen only with highly educated professionals
>> with high incomes. Now it is happening at the level
>> of the factory floor worker. Couples at all levels
>> are designing their compensation packages based on
>> their individual needs. The only way this can work is
>> if everything is portable and flexible, which requires
>> a huge shift in the American economy.
>>
>>
>>
>> The U.S. is in the process of building the world's
>> first 21st century model economy. The only other
>> countries doing this are U.K. and Australia . The
>> model is fast, flexible, highly productive and
>> unstable in that it is always fracturing and
>> re-fracturing. This will increase the economic gap
>> between the U.S. and everybody else, especially Europe
>> and Japan .
>>
>>
>>
>> At the same time, the military gap is increasing.
>> Other than China , we are the only country that is
>> continuing to put money into their military. Plus, we
>> are the only military getting on-the-ground military
>> experience through our war in Iraq . We know which
>> high-tech weapons are working and which ones aren't.
>> There is almost no one who can take us on economically
>> or militarily. There has never been a superpower in
>> this position before. On the one hand, this makes the
>> U.S. a magnet for bright and ambitious people. It
>> also makes us a target. We are becoming one of the
>> last holdouts of the traditional Judeo-Christian
>> culture. There is no better place in the world to be
>> in business and raise children. The U.S. is by far
>> the best place to have an idea, form a business and
>> put it into the marketplace. We take it for granted,
>> but it isn't as available in other countries of the
>> world.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ultimately, it's an issue of culture. The only
>> people who can hurt us are ourselves, by losing our
>> culture. If we give up our Judeo-Christian culture,
>> we become just like the Europeans. The culture war is
>> the whole ballgame. If we lose it, there isn't
>> another America to pull us out.

Some Friend, W's Mexican Amigo
September 16, 2007 12:06 PM ET | Bedard, Paul | Permanent Link

At the White House, the president has got to be muttering "some friend" when he pores over the new autobio from his old buddy Vicente Fox, Mexico's former leader. That's because Fox raps his border pal as stubborn and "the cockiest guy I have ever met in my life." Revolution of Hope, out next month, is a well-written, well-researched book about Fox's political career and presidency, which coincided with George W. Bush's. While he expresses a kinship with W, he breaks with the prez on the war and slams the GOP's immigration platform. He blames Bush's stubbornness on Iraq for bad international relations, calls his Spanish "grade-school level," and admits he didn't think Bush would ever become president. "I can't honestly say that I had ever seen George W. Bush getting to the White House," he pens.

World should brace for possible war over Iran: France

Sep 16 02:44 PM US/Eastern

The world should brace for a possible war over the Iranian nuclear crisis but seeking a solution through talks should take priority, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said on Sunday.
"We have to prepare for the worst, and the worst is war," he said in an interview broadcast on French television and radio.

"We must negotiate right to the end," with Iran, he said, but underlined that if Tehran possessed an atomic weapon, it would represent "a real danger for the whole world."

"We are trying to put in place plans which are the privilege of chiefs of staff and that is not for tomorrow," he said, referring to military plans but stressed that although any attack on Iran was far from taking place, "It is normal for us to plan" for any eventuality.

Kouchner said France wanted the European Union to prepare sanctions against Iran, outside the ambit of the UN Security Council, to force Tehran to forsake its nuclear ambitions.

"We have decided that while negotiations are continuing ... to prepare eventual sanctions outside the ambit of UN sanctions. Our good friends, the Germans, suggested that," he said.

The foreign minister also said leading French companies such as Total and Gaz de France had been urged not to undertake new work or contracts in Iran.

Iran vehemently denies Western allegations it is seeking an atomic weapon, saying its nuclear drive is aimed at providing electricity for a growing population whose fossil fuels will one day run out.

The five permanent Security Council members -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- plus Germany are due to meet to discuss a new draft UN resolution on sanctions against Iran on September 21 in Washington.

The United States has never ruled out taking military action against Iran but on Friday, Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei brushed off the notion that it could now threaten the Islamic republic.

He said that US President George W. Bush had been defeated in his Middle East plans and would one day stand trial for "atrocities" committed in Iraq.

When I read this, I am reminded that America has some of the brightest people on the planet. Its been fashionable and justified in varying degrees on topics to analyze what works and what doesn’t work for our countries foreign policy and military strategic doctrine.

The challenge is that the media for the most part SENSATIONALIZES it. The need to do this is due, in large part, by the need to charge the tribes (or the political parties) into a frenzy of what the other side (or tribe is doing) to beat them in the next election. This has been to the detriment of who we are as a nation and valid criticism of our two party system which is set up to work this way. Perhaps a new look at how we do politics to a multi party system is in order... I digress.

The reality is that America adjust and learns and moves forward even within the context of the media exploitation of our political parties. The important analysis is that which evolves our institutions in adapting a changing world.

It is true that there are limitations that our elected political parties put on the institutions, however at the end of the day, our institutions changes as a result of pain or failure. One day I hope to see Visa or similar competitive private sector company, take on U.S government institutions such as Social Security and others. It will be the pain and ineffectiveness that will spawn this change. I hope the new think tank “American Solutions’ will make progress in those areas. I digress.

Iraq, the major topic of American politics, is a experience that has caused major re-thinking of how we do business in the world. The power of globalism, which I define as ‘connectivity’ economically as well as to the larger world of ideas and knowledge (education) and choices that the internet provides, will ultimately be more powerful than Islamic Jihad or totalitarianism. The subtlety of nation building which includes the exporting of minimum rule sets to begin the process economic connectivity via FDI-foreign direct investment, is far more powerful, far more seductive, and far more effective that direct war fighting. Sometimes, as in the case of Saddam, it is inescapable in having to remove the obstacle to that advances connectivity. To own a cell phone or to communicate with the outside world, was a death sentence under the former Baathist regime.

The powerful thing about ‘minimum rule sets’ is that it doesn’t force a change, initially, of cultural customs which are guarded with life and death and existing tribal infrastructures. Those come later when effective increase in exports bring the desired goods and services that are lacking in many disconnected economies as a result. Thus the expanded choices of life and culture and integration into globalism where ancient customs which have outlived their purpose are let go.

This will happen in the same way as many changes happened during the Protestant reformation. Islam’s internal and external battle of its ancient traditions and conflict with Sharia law with modernity will be the next case in point.

Keeping things in context, Iraq has a good chance of being connected in much like the former Soviet Union and Balkans are now in the same period of time with regards to beginning globalization. It won’t happen this year or next in the south (Sunni and Shia Arab regions of Iraq) but it will increasingly happen in a decade and two from know which we’ve seen the other effected economies mentioned. Globalization is just to powerful, economic supply chains and peoples desire to keep them functional to potent.

In the minimum, the great ‘take away’ from toppling Saddam Hussein, has been the Iraqi Kurds. Here is a shining example of semi autonomous state which has flourished with the Bush Administration transferred over a BILLION dollars in seed money to jump start their economy. They have created a thriving young region. Perhaps not a perfect democracy by our ‘standards’ however they are connecting with consistent and increasing investment from Turkish companies and other multinational companies as well. Kurdistan is safer than most major US cities.

Consider the other ‘takeaways’, irregardless of U.S mistakes in post war Iraq or not, is that neither of Iraq’s former minority groups will be satisfied with Sunni Arab dominant rule. Think about it, under Saddam, his Baathist elite, which represented about 3-5% of the population ruled with impunity over 97% of his own population. While it was a gradation of favor or disfavor, it was completely out of whack with an elite regime mistreated its population.

Today, the Shiites who make up the majority have been effective in ethnically separating Baghdad into Sunni and alternatively Shia neighborhoods. Some 2 million have been displaced. It is unlikely that anytime in the short term there will be mixed neighborhoods. Shiites will not put up with Sunni domination. In practical terms Iraq as a nation has produced the first Iraqi Kurdish State as well as the first Iraqi Arab Shiite State. Perhaps it falls under ‘unintended consequences’ but it could be a positive move towards pluralism in the Middle East if a larger regional foreign policy strategy can be actuated. Likely in another U.S administration.

While Iran seeks to move up from a second rate military power using asymmetrical warfare techniques and proxies in the region, my bet is that once the U.S reduces its presence from the cities to an advisory capacity and ‘911’ swat resource, along with counter insurgency Special Ops activities with bases in more remote regions (likely up north outside of Kurdistan and down south Kuwait, it will be then that the Iraqi Shiites and Persian Shiites will begin their own battle for autonomy. The reality is that Persian and Arab ‘Shiism’ have distinct differences. I would suppose the differences being comparable to Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholic forms of Christianity. They celebrate the same holiday on different dates, and have different versions of that faith. The Grand Ayatollah Sistani of Iraq, preaches a separation of mosque and state while the Iranian version is the opposite. The truth is they both hate the U.S more than they hate each other. Both because of their religions but also because the U.S, under Bush 41, abandoned the Iraqi Shiites after the first Gulf War when he said to ‘rise up’ against Saddam and the U.S would support them. They did, while that U.S administration did not and over 100,000 Shiites were slaughtered by Saddam when they tried to rise up. No wonder the deep distrust continues to exist. Interesting side note, how faithful Bush 43 has been to the Shiite Malaki to date. Perhaps its goes deeper than just being the ‘elected’ leader of Iraq and has something to do with keeping his ‘word’ unlike his father did. I digress.

With the U.S forces wearing thin and our ultimate reduction of troops, it will force the Saudi’s to put their sons blood on the line to fight back the Shiite Crescent or attempt to expand Shiite expansion in the region. Remember, Shiites have been a minority in the middle east and largely treated so. So the tide is changing.

The other factor I don’t see to much in the U.S media is that tenuous position the failed Iranian theocracy is in. It’s population has 70% under 35 years of age. The regime is continuing to crack down on its youth with fashion police along with other conformities to acceptable Islamic standards. The crack down on women’s rights continues with brave Iranian woman paying the price for speaking up. It all goes to the reality that the theocratic regime is less and less in control of its people and ever so close to an upheaval. Chances of some effort to topple the regime by the end of the Bush term is better than a 50/50% chance in my "guestimation'.

The move over the the Saudi’s who ruling tribes are the chief exporter of the Wasabi form of Islam. It is the genesis of the Salafi jihadist movement and birth of Osama Bin Laden. I hear a report several years back about how the Saudi Royal family has purchased several billion dollars in real estate, largely in Switzerland, with the anticipation of an overthrow attempt of the Kingdom by the mullah driven tribes. I had coffee with a former State Department employee a few years back who told me of a long standing plan of the 82nd Airborne Division to rush in to protect the primary producing oil fields in Saudi Arabia should a coupe attempt take place. While our forces are stretched thin, the Saudi’s have put in their own plan in place recently.

In one sense the destruction of the oil field outputs would cause and significant ‘systems perturbation’ in the world to accelerate alternative energy capability to be incentivized. China would be more effected in a direct purchase sense as they import the vast majority of middle eastern oil. The U.S only gets about 7%. However it is a world commodity so the price is adjusted by demand. So think nuclear, think electric, think wind, solar, and incentivise alternative energy. I digress.

The BIG BANG theory is happening regardless of U.S control. It will continue to happen. We can only help shape it. Our best efforts is to be dynamic in our thinking which means being able to change the mission objective as we go. To figure out what our best ‘take away’ is based on our capabilities and national interest.

The article below is from one of my favorite professionals who calls it out regardless of political casualties.
The evolution of the military is happening. I hope you will enjoy it.

For those of you with interest, check out the same authors streaming video at: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/33 . It is a fascinating look at the evolution of our military.

We are American’s and we are the most innovative nation on the planet.

Enjoy... But in perspective.

===========================================================

By Thomas P.M. Barnett
Sunday, September 16, 2007

What our lost year in Iraq ends up costing America

Gen. David Petraeus’ report on Iraq, having been leaked to the press for days prior to his appearance on Capitol Hill, contained no surprises.

The surge’s several tactical successes in the Sunni regions are disconnected from any strategic progress in either strengthening the central government or stemming the opportunistic meddling by neighbors. Iraq is slowly separating into its three constituent parts (Kurdish, Shiite, and Sunni), with Baghdad becoming increasingly irrelevant.

America’s military surge plays effective midwife to this Balkans done backwards, in which we removed the dictator first and then presided uncomfortably over the ethnic cleansing that killed Iraq as a unitary state.

Iraq’s soft partition was preordained by the first Gulf War’s inconclusive outcome: Saddam survived to mercilessly crush a Shiite revolt but was subsequently prevented by American air power from strangling the emergent Kurdish nation.

Now, as a result of our strategic choices, neither Kurds nor Shiite accept anything less than a future free of Sunni domination.

President George Bush and the neocons entered office in 2001 bragging that real superpowers don’t do nation-building, and yet they have unwittingly created the modern era’s first Kurdish nation and first Arab Shiite state — two lasting “big bangs” that future presidents will manage for decades.

What wasn’t inevitable in this storyline was the amount of casualties we’ve suffered along the way.

The Bush administration is by no means solely to blame. America’s political system and defense-industrial complex were fundamentally incapable of adjusting to this long war against radical extremism absent the sort of undeniable failure represented by our post-war mismanagement of Iraq.

Long addicted to the Powell doctrine’s central tenet of avoiding another Vietnam at all costs, we went into Iraq with the army we had rather than the one we eventually realized we needed.

It was the force we’d been building for the previous quarter century.

That military didn’t do post-wars; it didn’t plan for them or equip for them or even have a credible doctrine for them. Led by political masters who openly disdained all of those requirements, it was a match made in hell.

What did that legacy cost us? Arguably as many as 3,000 American lives or roughly what we lost on 9/11.

Our military conducted a brilliant war in Iraq to topple Saddam’s regime, losing less than 140 troops over two months. From May 2003 through March 2004, our average post-war monthly casualty totals dropped from roughly 70 to just over 40, a decrease of almost 40 percent.

Those eleven months constituted the lost year in our post-war response. Since then, we’ve averaged approximately 75 deaths per month — 42 months running. By not mounting a serious post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction effort, we essentially let the post-war lapse back into war-level casualty rates.

Now imagine the army we should have surged the moment Saddam’s statues fell: our troops riding in Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles, trained and operating according to our new counter-insurgency doctrine, and led by officers prepared for a long, hard post-war slog instead of an easy, light-up-your-victory-cigar end state.

If all that force had accomplished were to keep its casualties from rising from that initial post-war average, we would have suffered approximately 1,400 fewer deaths.

If we had attracted enough coalition forces to field a peacekeeping force on par with those generated by NATO for Bosnia and Kosovo, or roughly two-dozen troops per 1,000 local citizens, history says we could have reduced our casualty rates far more significantly. Almost 85 percent of America’s cumulative casualties — over 3,100 deaths — have come since that lost year passed.

It’s little wonder that our army’s younger officers are demanding systemic change.

The Iraq war did nothing to change our military, but the Iraq post-war has done much. The new Army-Marine Corps counter-insurgency field manual, published last December, was the intellectual brainchild of Petraeus and Marine Gen. James Mattis, whom President Bush recently nominated to head Joint Forces Command, the military’s transformation leader.

If these flag officers have their way, America’s military will enter future battlefields in this long war far more able to meet the formidable post-war tasks.

Does that make Iraq worthwhile?

For our military, the sad answer is yes.

And for the American people?

Since Congress is unlikely to block Petraeus’ tough request to maintain the surge through next spring, that judgment remains in the balance.

Thomas P.M. Barnett is a visiting scholar at the University of Tennessee’s Howard Baker Center and the senior managing director of Enterra Solutions LLC. Contact him at tom@thomaspmbarnett.com.